Assessment of EoI: 186

Organization: Pueblos de la Nación Diaguita en el Valle de Choromoro.



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 186 in Southern Cone - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 4/5 Reviewer C: 2/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: It is argued that a header area is important watersheds.

Evidence B:The territory / landscape / seascape proposed is a globally important area for biodiversity and climate benefits further. For example, improvement in the conditions of land tenure will enable the protection, restoration of native forests and implementation of appropriate technology to substantially strengthen indigenous governance to counter and mitigate climate change.

Evidence C:Territory located in the Tucuman Province, Argentina. Territory with various sources of watersheds. Rivers connected to the Gran Chaco region.


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 2/2 Reviewer C: NA/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The proposed area is important for mitigating climate. For example, the region is characterized by rising watershed important water in the Gran Chaco, water fountains that make up the rivers and lakes that supply a large sector of the population in low-lying areas such as the System Water Sali-Dulce - Cuenca Wall- Trancas ending in the lagoon Marchiquita, prov. Cordoba in the center of the country. Area of ​​maximum conservation interest as is the headwaters of watersheds, an integral part of the Serrana region of Gran Chaco, of vital importance for humanity, because it is the most important forest ecoregion of the continent, for its size and biodiversity then of the Amazon and the largest dry forests.

Evidence C:No clear, relevant information was provided to determine its importance.


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 1/5 Reviewer B: 1/5 Reviewer C: NA/2

Average: 1/5

Evidence A: The Diaguitas communities face serious problems of land titling

Evidence B:The area owned and managed by indigenous people under systems of community-based governance marginally since there is a legal framework and political strong in relation to indigenous peoples.

Evidence C:No clear information about land ownership and management was provided. Governance structures not clearly explained.


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/2 Reviewer C: NA/2

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The document submitted by the interested vaguely explains the cultural significance of the site. However, the region is inhabited since pre-Columbian times, caring for and preserving natural and cultural assets, keeping alive and rooted their worldview as guardians of nature

Evidence C:No clear information on the spiritual and cultural attachment to the land was provided. No specific sacred site was mentioned either.


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 4/5 Reviewer C: 1/5

Average: 2.67/5

Evidence A: The lack of indigenous land titling in the best interests of outside investors.

Evidence B:The initiative presents in its document that the area is vulnerable to current threats and risks for indigenous peoples and biodiversity if necessary actions are not taken. The main threat is external, landowners agents constantly harass the indigenous population in the absence of regulation of community titles communities Choromoro Valley; where have the technical, legal and cadastral survey by Law 26160, but in Argentina there are no mechanisms to guarantee the right to indigenous territory and problems due to lack of qualifications are spread throughout the country.

Evidence C:Main threats seem to be landholders and logging.


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 2/3

Average: 1.33/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The document submitted by the interested parties, indicating a legal and political framework that recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples over their lands and resources constraints.

Evidence C:General legal and policy frameworks enable conservation by the indigenous communities. However, it is clear the extent to which the communities hold collectively the land. Further information is needed.


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 1/3

Average: 1.33/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The proposed area indicates that there is an active government support for conservation led by indigenous peoples in the country / area proposed.

Evidence C:National programs support conservation by the indigenous communities. However, no clear information was provided about relevant programs by the Tucuman Province.


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: NA/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The document reflects that have been implemented projects jointly with institutions and the proposed area indicates that there is an active government support for conservation led by indigenous peoples in the country / area proposed. government. And there are successful conservation initiatives led by indigenous peoples in the proposed area that provide a base for expanding.

Evidence C:No information was provided about conservation initiatives being carried out by the project proponent. The communities’ initiatives seem to be only focused in protecting that lands that are under their possession. One particular community was able to stop logging but not enough information was provided about it.


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/3 Reviewer C: 1/3

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The document indicates that there similar projects that will complement the initiative. However, the information is not detailed properly.

Evidence C:Information about 13 projects was provided. Two of them are relevant for this particular project.



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 13/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 19/30
Reviewer C Total Score: 7/30

Average Total Score: 13/30



Performance of EoI 186 in Southern Cone - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 0/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 1/3

Average: 1/3

Evidence A: This EoI relates more to the demand for recognition of indigenous rights over the territory with a conservation initiative of inclusive biodiversity

Evidence B:The project will support the long-term objectives of the Communities to the defense of the territory, cultural appreciation, conservation of native forests, production and sustainable employment generation power have an interdisciplinary team from addressing legal issues relevant to the ancestral possession of the territory as cultural appreciation, environmental preservation, food sovereignty and community participation to strengthen governance of the people in the Valley Choromoro,

Evidence C:Proposed approach heavily focused on protecting the lands under the communities’ possession. Gaining legal security over such lans is the main goal. A few elements of the project focus on conservation and governance.


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 4/6 Reviewer C: NA/6

Average: 3/6

Evidence A: The proposal needs a thorough review for clarity of objectives, actions and results regarding the conservation objective

Evidence B:Activities and results of the document are clearly defined with their links and relations towards improving the quality of life of populations through the development of productive enterprises, associated with localities that particularize each in relation to the natural and cultural environment and integrate them into its geography as a territory of protection, autonomy articulate indigenous identity that will allow them to trade and act together with other communities. However, no detailed and accurate information needs clarification in some respects.

Evidence C:The information included into the EoI is neither clear nor comprehensive. Various aspects of the project require further information and clarification.


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: You can not see the relationship between the proposed goals and the disappearance of pressures and threats

Evidence B:The execution of the project will provide important services eco systemic and result in not only comprehensive benefits for communities articulated but for all inhabitants of this basin allowing the territory to strengthen its defense and environmental conservation. However, it has limitations of the legal and policy framework in the proposed area.

Evidence C:Proposed project could help overcome what has been included as threats. Gaining legal security over their lands will certainly enable opportunities for conservation.


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:Activities and results are well aligned with cessation of harassment, eviction cessation trials, resolution of the merits of the conflict over territory, efficient management of natural resources and trained community members.

Evidence C:The project activities and results are aligned with the EoI range of investment. The proposed activities are doable within the project period.


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 2/3

Average: 1.67/3

Evidence A: This is some government programs for the rural sector

Evidence B:The paper highlights some important sources of co-financing. However, no details of the time period and the amount to be invested in this project.

Evidence C:Information about 13 sources of co-financing has been included. But it is not clear whether they are significant for this particular project.


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 3/5 Reviewer C: 1/5

Average: 2.33/5

Evidence A: Provided information

Evidence B:The information given by the initiative reflects a moderate estimate to the main indicators of the GEF.

Evidence C:Based on the provided information, the benefits are not substantial.


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 3/3

Average: 2.33/3

Evidence A: Indicators for improving living conditions are reasonable. However, no specific indicators just appreciate the Diaguita culture.

Evidence B:Additional contributions to the goal of the project is moderate to improving the quality of life of the indigenous population in general since this is a comprehensive project that the strengthening indigenous governance in the territory they inhabit from generation to generation enables better management means. It does not give specific benefits to the surtax.

Evidence C:These results do derive from the stated project goals. Particular attention was given to livelihoods results.


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 3/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: The vision provided almost strictly linked to the issue of obtaining rights on land titling.

Evidence B:The main activities of the project are designed to be installed capacities for sustainable production, management and training of human resources to ensure, when these targets are achieved, continuity, permanence and amplification of the positive impacts of the initiative.

Evidence C:Because the main goal is gain legal security over the lands in possession, once it is achieved, biodiversity and governance will certainly benefit over time.


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: NA/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The proposed activities are related to the Strategy and National Action Plan on Biodiversity and National Certain contributions regarding the care, protection, restoration and conservation of biodiversity. No clutch does not detail the top priorities.

Evidence C:No clear information was provided. Project proponent either not aware of NBSAPs and/or NDCs or not being capable to relate the EoI to them.


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3 Reviewer C: 1/3

Average: 1.67/3

Evidence A: Aims to provide spaces for women vague, unspecific.

Evidence B:The participation of women is vital in their indigenous worldview, in ceremonies in the round alternates between women and men as this is the symbol of the together represent duality and integration, however, only specifies some aspects of the participation of women.

Evidence C:Gender mainstreaming approached not clearly stated. No project activity or goal target gender mainstreaming.


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 1/5 Reviewer B: 3/5 Reviewer C: 2/5

Average: 2/5

Evidence A: No history enough.

Evidence B:The document presented by interested parties shows a medium-high potential for innovation and transformation to a long-term contribution.

Evidence C:Potential is moderate.



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 17/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 26/40
Reviewer C Total Score: 17/40

Average Total Score: 20/40



Performance of EoI 186 in Southern Cone - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 6/6 Reviewer C: 2/6

Average: 3.33/6

Evidence A: Important spaces described the project management by allied NGOs, such as budget management and execution of the project.

Evidence B:The initiative reflects the focus-Led in the development of the document by indigenous peoples.

Evidence C:It is led by an indigenous organization. However, it is not clear whether the project proponent is an actual organization or an ad-hoc network working with four indigenous communities.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 4/6 Reviewer C: 4/6

Average: 3.33/6

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The leading proponent of the document shows a significant leadership in the field of proposed work.

Evidence C:It is led by an indigenous organization. However, it is not clear whether the project proponent is an actual organization or an ad-hoc network working with four indigenous communities.


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 4/5 Reviewer C: 3/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The main proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other organizations of indigenous peoples, plays an important role in the design, governance and implementation, to carry out the work.

Evidence C:Project proponent with relevant indigenous partnerships. There seems to be a strong connection among the project proponent and the four indigenous communities mentioned in the EoI.


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 4/5 Reviewer C: 4/5

Average: 3.33/5

Evidence A: The organization does not provide sufficient evidence on the ability to manage a project of the scale of ICI

Evidence B:According to the document, the organization has some technical-administrative and logistical capacity that will sustain and carry out management activities and training of the project; in turn members of communities have the empirical knowledge and the necessary suitability to produce the changes proposed in the project.

Evidence C:The EoI includes NGOs and government agencies as project partners. These partners would provide the necessary technical capacity to deliver the proposed results.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 0/6 Reviewer B: 2/6 Reviewer C: 2/6

Average: 1.33/6

Evidence A: No evidence was seen in respect

Evidence B:The paper shows some financial management capacity and projects necessary for the scale of the proposed effort, however, the organization will need support to two criteria.

Evidence C:The information about the project proponent’s capacity is not clear. The information provided about project proponent and the four indigenous communities in questions is confusing.


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/2 Reviewer C: NA/2

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: Although projects have gained support from international organizations, these have been small-scale and not the least one even executed.

Evidence B:The Express initiative that has experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF but has no experience

Evidence C:NA



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 9/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 21/30
Reviewer C Total Score: 15/30

Average Total Score: 15/30



Performance of EoI 186 in Southern Cone - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)